MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551108406 · doi:10.1139/gen-2015-0183

Testing the reliability of standard and complementary DNA barcodes for the monocot subfamily Alooideae from South Africa

2016· article· en· W2551108406 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barnabas H. Daru, Michelle van der Bank, Abubakar Bello, Kowiyou Yessoufou

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDNA barcodingSubfamilyLineage (genetic)Evolutionary biologyBarcodeThreatened speciesEndemismZoologyEcologyGeneticsGeneHabitat

Abstract

Although a standard DNA barcode has been identified for plants, it does not always provide species-level specimen identifications for investigating important ecological questions. In this study, we assessed the species-level discriminatory power of standard (rbcLa + matK) and complementary barcodes (ITS1 and trnH-psbA) within the subfamily Alooideae (Asphodelaceae), a large and recent plant radiation, whose species are important in horticulture yet are threatened. Alooideae has its centre of endemism in southern Africa, with some outlier species occurring elsewhere in Africa and Madagascar. We sampled 360 specimens representing 235 species within all 11 genera of the subfamily. With three distance-based methods, all markers performed poorly for our combined data set, with the highest proportion of correct species-level specimen identifications (30%) found for ITS1. However, when performance was assessed across genera, the discriminatory power varied from 0% for all single markers and combinations in Gasteria to 63% in Haworthiopsis, again for ITS1, suggesting that DNA barcoding success may be related to the evolutionary history of the lineage considered. Although ITS1 could be a good barcode for Haworthiopsis, the generally poor performance of all markers suggests that Alooideae remains a challenge. As species boundaries within Alooideae remain controversial, we call for continued search for suitable markers or the use of genomics approaches to further explore species discrimination in the group.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: venue_new · design weight: 2684.25 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: medium

Tests the species-discrimination power of DNA barcode markers in a plant subfamily; evaluates a laboratory marker's performance for taxonomy, a polysemous use of reliability rather than research methodology.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

It evaluates DNA barcodes for identifying plant species, not the conduct or reporting of research.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Validates DNA barcodes for plant species identification; reliability is taxonomic method use, not research systems.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207